Excuse me…are you attributing posts to me I haven’t made?
Have you read the rules?
[reeder]
You’re excused.
Do you know why?
You can trust Peru.
[/reeder]
You wanna know something?
You are fun.
I like you.
[reeder]
But is something knowing?
Bushies are people.
Key lime pie.
[/reeder]
I am really beginning to believe you’re a bot. I mean, really. I’m seriously hoping that a human being with brain function did not type this.
Child molesters should be “taken out and shot”? Really. Vigilante justice? Okay. How about we shoot anyone who commits a crime, no matter how major or minor?
You did read a semi-recent thread that stated child molesters were one of the groups who didn’t have as high a recidivism rate as is normally stated? If not, I’ll try to find it for you. For someone who berates others about their so-called “ignorance,” you’re pretty ignorant yourself.
I’ll give you an example:
I have been sexually assaulted. I did NOT, when it occurred, tell people who would have no reason to know about it. You want to know why? Because it would’ve hindered a criminal investigation, and it possibly could’ve made the perpetrator angry enough to find me and at least beat the living shit out of me. Furthermore, even if the perp was a slimy sleazeball, he deserved his day in court, as per the American Bill of Rights. Starting a lynch mob doesn’t help ANYTHING. Giving out personal info of alleged/known criminals to uninvolved people does not help ANYTHING.
I thought you were all about the Bill of Rights, being so anti-conservative and all, but maybe I was wrong. Obviously if you commit some crimes that Reederdesignates, it would be better for you to be “taken out and shot.”
You disgust me. Your disdain for a fair judicial process disgusts me.
Know you are straying.
Nazis were people too.
So was Pol Pot.
I feel your pain.
But were you a child?
And no I have not posted about predators having less recidivism.
They would under my plan though.
Yeah, I was.
I just don’t think the vigilante method would work. You might have less recidivism of every crime if you shot people in the head for them, but I just don’t see it as a reasonable solution.
Read the post by Lynn about three hours ago. While it probably won’t change anyone’s mind, it might get them to the point where they can go “Well, it’s still not what I would do, but I guess it makes sense given where they’re coming from.”
Going from a ban to a 30-day suspension given all the sordid details is a hard move to fathom.
Going from a warning+edited/deleted post to a 30-day suspension makes more sense.
So, despite the best efforts of Reeder and spoke- to prevent any rational discussion, the thread has served its purpose, as far as I’m concerned, but I can continue the plan…
Should the user be banned from the community in general (I.E. from all of the sites that serve the general community) for being a known bad actor… or should the user have to commit an offense on each individual site to be banned from that particular site?
Note: The only other online community I really am a part of is a collection of about nine different sites with a more or less monolithic admin group across all of them. Each site has it’s own unique community as well as a large proportion of shared membership. If you’re harassing another member, you will get banned from all of the sites where you’re both members, even if you haven’t escalated it to a bannable level on some of the other sites. This is only possible because of the monolithic admin group across all the sites… but it works pretty well to protect the peace of the community.
The SDMB community, OTOH, is about the polar opposite. It’s a bunch of scattered sites over which the SDMB proper has no official control… but it’s pretty much the same community across all these scattered holes. Given the way I’m used to operating, it only makes sense that if someone does something that affects the community adversely, you take steps to minimize the damage… even if they didn’t happen to the commit the punishable offense in the section of the community you’re empowered to protect.
Out of curiousity, does anyone know if TubaDiva got banned from LiveJournal for violating their privacy policy?
He had Terri Shiavo type it for him. Really, she’d probably make more sense.
Burma shave
Hmmm … 1010011010, converted from binary to decimal, = 666 … :eek:
To save you some time. 1100001001 is 777
I presumed Good Egg misspelled it … or is 666 a nickname, & 777 your real name? 
Wow. I didn’t notice he’d left out a zero.
Hi! I’m a geek!
:bites the head off a chicken:
Uh, never mind …
::ducks out back of thread::
They warned us about posting while drunk …
Reeder, quit acting like a jerk.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
No offense to you personally, but that sounds like a real stretch to me.
Can you be more specific?
You could hide behind the technicality that if it doesn’t happen on my watch, it doesn’t affect my watch… but that’s patent bullshit when there’s a lot of overlap. Things that happen in areas outside of your control can and will begin to affect the area you’re responsible for. You can see the coming storm and take preventative action, or you can wait until it happens and pick up the pieces afterwards. Ounce of prevention and all that.
For some folks, yes. For myself, the one time I ventured into the LJ areas, I was appalled, as if I’d fallen into open sewage. I’ve been a part of multiple messageboards over the years, including boards in the middle of invasions by Neonazis, and I’ve never been as repelled as I was by my venture into LJ.
The Other Thread reminds me of that.
So, no. I don’t consider the LJ areas devoted to SD part of my community, and I don’t especially care what happens there. The more the Admins build an electric fence between the two countries, the happier I am. The less they encourage disputes to cross that border, the happier I am.
If there were a rule absolutely forbidding Admins to comment on LJ sites (either by writing a comment on the site, or by making a comment here about the site), I think that’d be just peachy.
Daniel